Teamwork method and system

ABSTRACT

The invention relates to a teamwork method and a computer system, using which the evaluations of a group about the features of different targets can be gathered and summaries can be made. The method is fast, democratic, anonymity ensuring, suitable for information network working, multidimensional, skew attitudes correcting and suitable for working independent of place. The system comprises a server ( 1 ), the workstation of the main user ( 3 ), a number of workstations for evaluators ( 4 - 7 ) and the software used by the web-browser, which the main user and the evaluators can connect to. The main user formulates the inquiry. The server requests through email the evaluators to answer it and gives at the same time the instructions and identifiers required. The evaluations are entered graphically using a two-dimensional table. The axes of the table present the dimensions to be evaluated (e.g. on the vertical axis “importance” and the horizontal axis “performance”). At the other end of the axes is the weak value of the dimension in question and at the opposite end the strong value (e.g. small importance/great importance, bad performance/good performance). The program calculates normalization for the answer given and moves the points given by the evaluators to cover evenly the table so that the mean value is located in the origin. When a report is requested the server calculates the normalized mean-value figure, places the points in the two-dimensional table and adds ellipses around them, the dimensions of which horizontally and vertically present the deviation of the points in the direction in question.

[0001] The present invention relates to a method and a computer systemapplying the method in question to collect, to process and to presentevaluations, views and/or opinions of a group, which is either gatheredor scattered.

[0002] Collecting the evaluations, views and opinions of two or morepeople and processing the common evaluation, view and the expression ofthe opinion of a group are done usually either by getting together, bydiscussing and by making an oral or written report as a result. It canalso be accomplished physically far from each other as a telephone,video or net meeting. In these meetings it is also possible to applyacclamation or voting by raising hands to help decision-making amongthose present.

[0003] The opinion of a group is often compiled using questionariesand/or interviews, which are summarized in writing. In the summarystatistical methods can be used to calculate the mean and the deviationof the group.

[0004] One prior art working method is the Delfoi method, in which theopinions of the evaluation group are gathered using several iterativecycles. The summary of the temporary results is given to the group as afeedback in order to work up the opinion of the group cycle by cyclenearer to the consentaneous decision.

[0005] A parliamentary exercise of power is sometimes combined with avoting machine in the meeting place, by which the opinions of thosepeople present can be found out about the topics under voting. Lately,opinion surveys of type: Yes/No/Cannot say, have appeared also in netservices. These surveys display immediately the momentary distributionof the votes.

[0006] Most methods and auxiliary devices used today are time consumingand as such not real time. It can take even weeks to find out theresults of questionary or telephone interview surveys. Even theiterative cycle of the Delfoi method takes normally several days, evenweeks.

[0007] The best methods in real time are physical and/or virtualmeetings and the discussions and acclamations taken place in them, buteven processing of this type is time consuming and ineffective. Inaddition, the common opinion is greatly affected by the communicationand interaction skills of those present. Talkative, emphatically actingparticipants distort the result when many silent experts withdrawthemselves from conversation. It is so easy to influence on theattitudes of a group.

[0008] Voting machines facilitate honest opinion input also fromwithdrawing persons and also otherwise make the decision making processmore democratic but mostly the machines are of type: Yes/No/Empty, whichare suitable for a limited choice of tasks.

[0009] For rapid feedback gathering voting machines suitable for meetinghall usage have also been developed, using which the common opinion onvarious topics can be queried with wireless terminals, distributed tothe audience.

[0010] The group feedback systems used nowadays are one-dimensional.They can be used only to check what the participants regard asimportant, which alternative they would choose from those presented orwhich vision they believe in. Especially in strategic working it isimportant to know the opinions two- or multidimensionally, whichsucceeds nowadays only when some feedback questionaries planned forsurveying customer contentment are used.

[0011] The problem in many teamwork methods is also that they are boundto a certain place. If one of the key figures is on a journey, he oftencannot participate in decision making at all or the schedules of themeetings have to be postponed due to journeys.

[0012] The object of this invention is to remove these shortcomings andto create such a method and system for collecting, processing andpresenting evaluations, views and opinions of a gathered or scatteredgroup, which is real time or at least is only dependent on the activityof the group members themselves, processes democratically the answers ofall participants, assures anonymity, if required, is suitable forworking with information networks, is multidimensional, corrects skewattitudes and is suitable for working independently of time and place,increases the mutual commitment of the group and markets itself.

[0013] The method and the computer system according to the presentinvention are based on collecting evaluation data two- ormultidimensionally (e.g. importance/performance), based on theirnormalization individually for each responder so that the mean values ofthe points entered into the coordinate system are set to the origin andthe deviation (standard deviation or another value representing thedeviation) to a preset constant value, based on processing the resultstogether so that the mean value of the answers of the group is set tothe origin and the point of each feature to be evaluated is set to themean value of normalized points and the standard deviation to the presetconstant value.

[0014] Gathering the evaluation information is performed mostbeneficially through information network connection in which for eachevaluator an input table of his own is opened, in which the features tobe evaluated or other things have been listed and numbered and in whichthe evaluator moves with a mouse etc. the numbers in question to his owntable and puts them into the location he desires. The axes of the table,which can be either two- or three-dimensional, present the dimensions tobe evaluated (e.g. on the vertical axis ‘importance’ and on thehorizontal axis ‘performance’). At the other end of the axes is the weakvalue of the dimension and at the opposite end the strong value (e.g.low importance/high importance, bad performance/good performance).

[0015] The evaluation information can also be gathered by numericalvalues or on ‘tick the alternative desired’ principle. In this casethere can be more than three dimensions. Evaluation by numbers becomesbeneficial when a graphic web-browser with special features is notavailable or the evaluations are desired to be entered by email,facsimile, telephone or wap-connection.

[0016] In the first normalization the means and standard deviation forevery dimension are calculated from the evaluator's own evaluations sothat the points can be moved, if desired, to such locations that inevery dimension the new means calculated from them fall on the origin.Most beneficially this happens by subtracting from every coordinate ofthe point received as an answer the mean of all answers having the samedirection and by dividing the new coordinate value by the standarddeviation of all the answers of the target in question having the samedirection. The mean of the coordinates of the new points calculated withthis method becomes zero in every dimension (i.e. the mean falls on theorigin) and the standard deviation becomes one. Thus the points arelocated on the table so that they deviate in every direction with thesame amount. The dimensions of a suitable square are −1,5 . . . +1,5, inwhich case only very seldom one point falls outside the area and alsothose points can be restricted to the borderline of the square.

[0017] The first normalization removes the so-called skew attitude. Somethink that all features evaluated are important whereas other peoplethink they are not important. Some think everything goes badly, someother persons see both good and bad things. From the answers of bothgroups the positions of their evaluations can be seen in proportion toall of their own evaluations. From that e.g. the order can be found out(e.g. the order of priority or the order of quality from best to worst).

[0018] It is good for the evaluator to see his normalized pattern ofpoints before the information is sent to the common processing so thathe can correct it nearer to the pattern he desires.

[0019] When enough evaluations have been gathered or when the timeallowed for the evaluation expires the calculation of the summary isperformed. For each feature evaluated its location is calculated as amean of the locations given by different evaluators. The means andstandard deviations are calculated separately for every dimension. Thenew locations of points are normalized once more so that the common meanof all points falls again on the origin on the display table and thestandard deviation common to all points falls for every dimension on thepreset constant value (i.e. on the 1,5*1,5 table to one). For eachevaluator a report can also be made showing in addition to the commonevaluation also his own evaluation so that the evaluators can comparetheir own evaluation with the common evaluation of the group accordingto the locations of the points. The standard deviation of each locationof a point (the deviation of the locations given by evaluators) can bedisplayed by an ellipse, angular figure or other two-dimensional figuredrawn around the point (two-dimensional table) or by a correspondingthree-dimensional figure (three-dimensional table). The diameter of theellipse in both directions represents the deviation of the points (e.g.the diameter=standard deviation in the direction in question).

[0020] It is possible to see at a glance from the end result, which ofthe features evaluated are located in each field of the four-field (orin the cubic block defined by the coordinate planes). E.g. in theimportance/performance four field the good and important features areseparated from bad but important features. It can be seen from theellipse immediately on which topics there have been an agreement and onwhich topics there is disagreement.

[0021] The evaluation can be done very quickly even if the evaluatorsare physically located around the world. It is possible to show theresult to all evaluators and to other persons desired so that newstimuli are given to the discussion and it directs the thoughts in thesame direction. It is also possible to repeat the evaluation immediatelyafter the discussion. For the new evaluation the list of features to beevaluated can be changed or focused. A regular monthly or annualfollow-up is also possible when the results of the evaluations arestored and they are displayed simultaneously in the same figure.

[0022] More precisely, the method according to the present invention ischaracterized in that what has been presented in the characteristics ofthe claim 1 and for the computer system in that what has been presentedin the characteristics of the claim 6.

[0023] In the following, the invention is described by an applicationexample (named CREST in the following, CREST comes from the wordsCREative Strategic Thinking) referring to the accompanying figures.

[0024]FIG. 1 shows a CREST system, which operates in the Internet.

[0025]FIG. 2 shows a flowchart of the method i.e. the events in theCREST analysis.

[0026]FIG. 3 shows an input table for the evaluations and its use.

[0027]FIG. 4 shows a summary table.

[0028] The most important part of the information network version(FIG. 1) of the method according to the present invention (called CRESTanalysis in the following) is the server 1 (called CREST server in thefollowing), which runs in the Internet 2. The software running in theserver is called the CREST tool in the following. The main user acquiresthe right to use the CREST tool through the Internet. The work-station 3of the main user is in contact through a web-browser with the CRESTserver 1. The workstations 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the evaluators are likewisein contact through the web-browser with the Internet 2. Thecommunication between the CREST server 1, the main user and theevaluators is performed also through email in addition to web-pages.

[0029] The phases for doing a CREST analysis are presented in FIG. 2.The main user logs in with his own workstation 8 to the Internet andlogs in 9 to the CREST server 10, which checks the authorization 11 andopens the CREST tool, which is shown to the main user as a workbook.

[0030] The main user prepares the questionary 12 by filling into thefirst table of the workbook the name of the company or the community,the specifier of the name, contact information, a short description ofthe inquiry for the summary table, the headings of the axes and theadjectives describing their value. He writes the basic descriptions forthe blocks of the four field in the summary table and the starting andclosing times of evaluation inputs. To another table he writes thetargets of the evaluation (e.g. in case of a SWOT analysis ‘strengths’,‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’ and ‘threats’) and possible headings,which deviate from the basic headings of the axes (in the SWOT examplethe basic headings can be ‘importance’ and ‘performance’, which can beused for evaluating existing conditions i.e. for strengths andweaknesses but for evaluating the future issues i.e. for opportunitiesthe headings are changed to ‘credibility’ and ‘attractiveness’ and forthreats to ‘probability’ and ‘seriousness’) and the adjectivesdescribing their value (small—big, bad—good, insignificant—significantetc.) and in the summary table he writes the descriptions deviating fromthe basic descriptions of the fields of the four field (in case of theSWOT example as basic descriptions in strong point and weak point tablescan be used starting from the right upper field and circulatingclockwise with the sun:‘Continue this way’, ‘Underestimated oroverestimated?’, ‘Forget these’ and ‘For heaven's sake, do something’while for the descriptions of the four field of opportunities aresuitable correspondingly ‘Wow!’, ‘Castles in the air’, ‘Forget these’and ‘Secure’) . In the third table he lists the features of theevaluation target, which should be evaluated (in the SWOT example thestrengths could be: ‘Technological know-how’, ‘Customer orientation’etc. and opportunities: ‘The Far East market’, ‘Electronic commerce’etc.). In the fourth table he defines the evaluator groups (e.g.‘strategic team’, ‘production personnel’, ‘marketing and sales’,‘customers’, ‘owners’ etc.). In the fifth table the main user definesthe evaluators in each evaluator group and their email addresses.Finally he signs 13 that the questionary is ready. Part of theinformation entered by the main user is delivered to the evaluators withthe input table (FIG. 3) and part with the summary table (FIG. 4).

[0031] Next the CREST server according to flowchart 2 connects 14 theinquiry to the input state for evaluations at a moment entered to thetimer 15 and sends 16 by email an announcement and instructions to theevaluators. The evaluator receives 17 the inquiry message to hisworkstation. The same message is sent to all users marked as evaluators19, 20, 21. Each evaluator logs himself in 22 according to theinstructions he has received or with the help of the link and personaluser identification and password to the CREST server, which checks 23the user information and opens for the user in question the evaluationinput table reserved for him. The input table can be protected, ifdesired, so that not even the main user can access it. The evaluatorinputs 24 his evaluations (in more detail in FIG. 3) and enters anormalization command 25. The CREST server performs 26 the normalizationand returns 27 the normalized input table to the evaluator display. Theevaluator checks 28 the result and moves points with the mouse, ifrequired, to new locations and gives a new normalization command 29.After he has accepted the figure he sends an acknowledgement 30 of it tothe CREST server, which furthermore sends an acknowledgement(‘thank-you’) email 32 back to the user and informs when the result canbe displayed.

[0032] When the timer 15 reaches the closing time of the inquiry set bythe main user, the CREST server closes 33 the inquiry, calculates thesummary 34 of the results and sends a message 35 to all users andpossibly to a group of other people that the CREST analysis is ready andsends instructions or a link for getting the results displayed. The mainuser logs himself in 36 the CREST server and gets 37 the final result 38displayed. In the same way all evaluators write themselves into theCREST server and are able to investigate the result 40.

[0033]FIG. 3 shows the input table 41 and its utilization in moredetail. The CREST tool draws the table and locates the targets 42, 43 ofevaluation into it according to the information given by the main userand the features 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 to be evaluated, theheadings 51, 52 of the axes, the adjectives 53, 54, 55, 56 describingtheir value and the basic information 57 of the company or community.The evaluator activates the feature to be evaluated by clicking themouse (In FIG. 3 feature 47 has been activated). When the cursor ismoved with the mouse on the table, the number 58 of the feature inquestion is displayed with its vertical and horizontal cursor lines 59,60 with the help of which and by moving the mouse the evaluator placesthe number in question (i.e. the feature corresponding to it) to thelocation he desires. The number remains in its place by clicking themouse but it can be moved to a new location, if desired, by a new click.The values entered are shown on the table as encircled numbers 61, 62,63. When evaluations are entered in succession the following number isactivated automatically after the earlier one has been clicked into itsplace, which speeds up entering the evaluations. When the evaluationsbelonging to the same group have been entered (e.g. in SWOT thestrengths and weaknesses either together or separately depending on ifthe same headings for the axes have been entered), the evaluator canperform normalization if he desires and can check how do the locationsof the points look like after they have been normalized. (If theevaluator does not perform normalization the CREST tool performs it inany case in connection with the sending of the evaluation.) Thenormalization is performed by clicking with a mouse the normalizationbutton 64. Accepting the normalization is acknowledged and theevaluation result is sent by clicking the send button 65. The anonymityof the evaluator can be secured, if desired, by denying from other usersaccess to the input table of the evaluator in question using personalpasswords for each evaluator, which are allotted by the CREST server andare only made known by email to the evaluator in question.

[0034] In the summary table (FIG. 4) the targets 66, 67 for evaluation,the features 68, 69 to be evaluated, the basic information 70 of thecompany, a short description 71 of the analysis and the summary fourfield 72 with its headings 73, 74 of axes and with the descriptions 75,76, 77, 78 of the four fields are shown. The numbers describing featuresare shown in the table as mean values in their places calculated andnormalized horizontally and vertically. Each point is encircled by anellipse 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, which describes the deviation. The diameterof the ellipse horizontally 84 describes the deviation of the opinionsin that direction and the vertical diameter 85 correspondingly invertical direction. It can be seen from the summary table at a glance,which category formed by the four-field the feature in question belongsto according to the opinion of each evaluator group 86. The unanimity orthe deviation of opinions can also be seen from it.

[0035] There are several different additional features, which can beutilized for implementing the method and system according to theinvention. E.g. the summaries can be shown either separately for eachevaluator group or also by combining different evaluator groups.Different groups and their combinations can be found behind theevaluator group button 86, the groups which the CREST tool hascalculated to be displayed. Comparisons between different groups can bemade by color coding and showing the results of analysis on the samesummary table. The ellipse presenting the feature under discussion canbe made blinking and only the ellipses under discussion from the resultsof the different groups can be called for, in which case directing thediscussion to exactly the feature desired can be made effective.

[0036] It is possible to program also the earlier results of theanalysis connected to the inquiry to be found behind the same button 86or behind its own button 87 to enable investigating the change. Anearlier CREST analysis can be included in the four-field coded with acolor, in which case the change can be seen at a glance. The change canbe also shown as slowly repeated animation, where the points move fromthe places given by the earlier analysis to the places determined by thenew analysis and their ellipses can change gradually to the forms givenby the new analysis. Also arrows attached to each point can be used toshow the change. The direction of arrows tells the direction of thechange and their length tells the magnitude of the change compared withthe previous time.

[0037] The information given by the CREST analysis can also be gatheredinto a data base, in which case it is possible to make summary analysesof it for monitoring the operation of different fields of activities,educational branches etc. The system can produce comparison informatione.g. for a unit analysing the functioning of its workplace on resultsreached in that branch on average over last years. The CREST analysisdoes not give absolute values but instead relative values veryillustratively.

[0038] The CREST analysis can be made to function in three-dimensionalxyz-system of coordinates when during the input phase of the input fielda projected cube is used instead. The third axis z of the cube runsaskew in the projection. When the points are entered its projection canbe seen on each surface of the cube (at least on three surfaces whichhave different directions i.e. on xy-, xz- and yz-planes), in which casethe movement of the mouse transfers the point e.g. on the xy-plane, themovement of the mouse with the shift button pressed down moves the pointon the xz-plane and the movement of the mouse with the ALT buttonpressed down moves the point on the yz-plane. Naturally also a controlstructure can be used, which moves three-dimensionally. The summary isshown as the corresponding projection figure, which can be seen from thedirection of the xz-plane by pushing the shift button and from thedirection of the yz-plane by pushing the ALT button. There is availablethe whole selection of methods known from the CAD work and e.g. from thegraphical branch for displaying the different projections.

[0039] The method is suitable to be used, in addition to Internet, inthe intranet or extranet of any company or community. The informationfrom the evaluators can be gathered partly or also completely usingquestionaries by email, facsimile, post etc. as far as the informationreceived by them is coded into a format suitable for the CREST tool.Thus the number scale can be used for evaluating the differentdimensions of each feature. In the same way the principle: ‘tick thealternative desired’, can be utilized here. It is possible to use two-,three- or multidimensional system of coordinates in these analyses. Thevalues can be given either numerically or in the two-dimensional casegraphically by a wap telephone, provided that a wap service designed forthis purpose has been opened.

[0040] The method and system according to the invention are suitablealso for gathering, processing and presenting opinions queried from thepublic.

[0041] E.g. on the feedback pages of the wep magazines there could be aninquiry of the importance and the quality of its articles free to beanswered by the readers. Different web based services can includesurveys of customer contentment and individuals (celebrities etc.) couldcollect feedback of their actions, personalities etc. In this case theprior art methods are used to prevent the same user to answer more thanonce to the same inquiry.

[0042] The method according to the present invention is suitable alsofor a product that markets itself in the Internet. An advertising bannerand a link to the server, from which the evaluators interested in thesystem can order the license to start to apply it for their own purposesas a main user, can be included in the tables of the evaluators.

[0043] The method according to the invention is applicable also as asystem of one computer to process evaluations of a group, which ismeeting at the same place. In this case the evaluations can be collectedusing graphical terminals distributed to the group so that the targetsof evaluation and the features to be evaluated are projected on screene.g. by video projector. Then the members of the group can give theirevaluations straight with their terminal equipments. The summary can bedisplayed immediately so the work can immediately continue effectively.The graphical terminals can use infrared radiation, radio waves orultrasound and they can be based also on giving numerical values or onvoting by pressing buttons. The wap telephone can be used as a terminalby developing a wap service for this purpose. In small meetings theevaluations can be entered into the program also in turns using the samecomputer.

1. A real-time data inquiry, processing and output method operated in adata network (2) for an evaluation group (19, 20, 21) that isdistributed in time and/or in location, in which method, by using asoftware application provided at a server (1, 10) that is connected tosaid data network, there can be processed evaluations, entered by atleast one member of said evaluation group through his workstation (4, 5,6, 7) and regarding the evaluated features (44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,68, 69) of various targets (42, 43, 66, 67) of evaluation, in whichmethod in the first step (9) the main user of said arrangementestablishes through his workstation (3) a connection to the softwareapplication provided at the server (1, 10) in order to log in to theservice, characterized in that said method also comprises a step (12),where said main user creates input tables (41) to be used in collectingthe data, said input tables being at least two-dimensional, so that thevalue axles (51, 52, 73, 74) of said input tables are mutuallyperpendicular, and that the intersections, i.e. origins of said axlesare located at the center point of each input table; as well asevaluation targets (42, 43, 66, 67), including the features (44, 45, 46,47, 48, 49, 50, 68, 69) to be fed in the input tables and to beevaluated; a step (16, 17) where the information that the inquiry hasbeen started is transmitted to the evaluation group members, a step (22,23) where the evaluation group members (19, 20, 21) are registered asespondents of said inquiry and obtain in their workstations (4, 5, 6, 7,18) the input tables (41) created by the main user, a step (24) wherethe evaluation group members evaluate the feature (44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49, 50, 68, 69) to be evaluated and enter the resulting evaluation (58,61, 62, 63) as regards each feature to be evaluated in the desiredlocation in the at least two-dimensional input tables (41) by utilizingthe graphic features of their workstations (4, 5, 6, 7, 18), a step (26)where the evaluations (58, 61, 62, 63) entered by the evaluation groupmembers are normalized in the input tables (41) by means of a softwareapplication provided at the server (10), a step (28, 30) where anevaluation group member accepts the normalized input tables (41), and asa result the normalized evaluations of the evaluation group member arerecorded in a database provided at the server (10), a step (33) wherethe response time reserved for the inquiry is terminated, a step (34)where the evaluations contained in the input tables recorded in thedatabase by the evaluation group members are combined and the combinedevaluations are normalized by utilizing a software application providedat the server (10) and recorded in a sum-up table; and a step (35, 37,38, 40) where the combined and normalized evaluations of the evaluationgroup, recorded in the sum-up tables (41) are transmitted to beavailable for the evaluation group members by means of said sum-uptable.
 2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that at thesame time as the information that the inquiry has started is sent to theevaluation group members, for said inquiry there is opened a time window(14), for the duration of which time the input tables (41) are availablefor the evaluation group members at the server (1, 10).
 3. A methodaccording to claim 1, characterized in that the normalization of thevalues fed by a single evaluation group member to the input tables (41)provided at the server (1, 10) is carried out so that the evaluations(58, 61, 62, 63) entered by an evaluation group member as regards theevaluated features (44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 68, 69) belonging to oneand the same input table (41) and describing all dimensions of saidfeatures are linearly transferred in the coordinate system, so that thecommon average of said evaluations is transferred to the center of theemployed input table, i.e. in the origin thereof, and in addition bymultiplying said transferred evaluations of the features by such amultiplier that the obtained mean deviation is a predetermined value. 4.A method according to claim 1, characterized in that on the basis of thenormalized feature evaluations (44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 68, 69)contained in the input tables (41) recorded at the server (1, 10) by theevaluation group members there are calculated averages of the normalizedevaluations (58, 61, 62, 63) of all evaluation group members,corresponding to the features to be evaluated for the sum-up table, andsaid averages are then transferred linearly in the sum-up tablecoordinates, so that the common average of said normalized evaluationsis transferred to the center of the sum-up table, i.e. to the originthereof, and that the transferred averages contained in the sum-up tableare further multiplied by such a multiplier that the obtained meandeviation is a predetermined value.
 5. A method according to claim 4,characterized in that by defining the normalized averages contained inthe sum-up tables as center points, there are drawn ellipses where thelengths of the main axles are proportional to the mean deviation of thenormalized evaluations, entered by the evaluation group members in theirown input tables (41), in the directions of the value axles of theinquiry table.
 6. A method according to claim 3 and 4, characterized inthat the chosen multiplier is a number that renders 1.5 as the meandeviation.
 7. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that inthe case of a two-dimensional input table (41), the chosen evaluationtarget (42, 43, 66, 67) is one of the following evaluation pairs:strengths—weaknesses, possibilities—threats.
 8. A method according toclaim 1, characterized in that in the case of a two-dimensional inputtable (41), the chosen headline (51, 52, 73, 74) for the value axles isone of the following headline pairs: importance—performance,credibility—attractiveness, probability—stability.
 9. A method accordingto any of the claims 1-8, characterized in that the values (44, 45, 46,47, 48, 49, 50, 68, 69) of the various features of each evaluationtarget (42, 43, 66, 67) are measured on more than two mutuallyperpendicular evaluation axles, in which case the calculations with eachevaluation axle pair are carried out according to the same principle asin the two-dimensional case, and the graphic presentation of the endresult is based on two-dimensional projection images parallel to theplanes created by the chosen evaluation axle pairs.
 10. An arrangementfor enabling real-time data inquiry, processing and output operationsfor an evaluation group (19, 20, 21) that is distributed in time and/orin location and capable of establishing a connection with a datanetwork, said arrangement comprising a data network (2) and a server (1,10) connected thereto, software applications provided at the server (1,10) for creating and using inquiry tables (41) and output tables, whichinquiry and output tables can be used for collecting the evaluations ofthe evaluation group members as regards the features of variousevaluation targets, for modifying said evaluations and compilingsum-ups, the workstations (4, 5, 6, 7, 18) of the group members, saidworkstations being connected to the data network (2) and means forestablishing a data transmission connection between the softwareapplication provided at the server (1) and the workstation of anevaluation group member, characterized in that the software applicationsprovided at the server are arranged to perform the following functionsin real-time: to collect information from the evaluation group to theinput tables (41) that are at least two-dimensional, to carry out thenormalization of the evaluations entered by the evaluation group membersin the input table, to record said normalized values of the input tableevaluations in a database provided at the server, to combine the valuesof the input tables recorded in the database by the evaluation groupmembers after a predetermined time window is closed and to normalizesaid combined evaluations, as well as to create, of said combinedvalues, a sum-up table that is at least two-dimensional, to drawellipses by defining the normalized averages contained in the sum-uptable as the center points, so that the lengths of the main axles ofsaid ellipses are proportional to the mean deviation of the normalizedevaluations, entered by the evaluation group members in their own inputtables (41), in the directions of the value axles of the inquiry table(41).
 11. An arrangement according to claim 10, characterized in thatthe software applications provided at the server are also arranged, atleast in two-dimensional output tables, to present simultaneously boththe normalized evaluations entered by a single evaluator and respectivenormalized averages calculated from the results of the evaluation group,as distinguished with different colors.
 12. An arrangement according toclaim 10, characterized in that it is arranged to present theevaluations entered by two or more evaluation groups in one and thesame, at least two-dimensional output table, where they can be observedsimultaneously.
 13. An arrangement according to claim 10, characterizedin that the server (1, 10) belonging to the arrangement is arranged torecord sum-up reports compiled of at least two-dimensional sum-up tablesin order to make comparisons with respect to time.